Constitution


Filtering Internet Access at Public Libraries

Almost lost in the crush of commentary on the Michigan affirmative action decision is this example of a place where, based on the laws they are writing and the decisions they are making, congress critters and supreme court justices should not be treading.This is as good a reason as any for libraries to just say no to federal dollars:

The aid comes through two separate programs. The first, the “E-rate” program administered by the Federal Communications Commission, requires Internet service providers to give discounts to libraries; this was worth $58.5 million to libraries in the year ending June 2002. The second provides direct federal grants to link libraries to the Internet; the grants totaled more than $149 million in fiscal 2002.

While $200 million is more then spare change it works out to less then $23,000/per public library (there are 9074 of them). If the Bushies are around long enough they will likely make this moot when they scrap these programs.

Eugene Volokh thinks that this decision may not be the last we hear of this issue and Peter Lewis has just about the right perspective:

Another issue: Whose filter will the libraries use? The software has to be compiled by someone whose value judgments are trustworthy.
Say, here’s an interesting idea: How about filters endorsed by Roman Catholic priests? Or, maybe librarians in Kansas will choose filters created by the same school advisory board that required science teachers to give as much class time to Christian creationism as to Darwinism. How about a filter created by the government itself, which cuts off funding to agencies that seek to disseminate information about birth control, and spends $8,000 to drape the naked right boob of the statue Spirit of Justice in the Justice Department? (Clarification: I’m referring to the boob on the statue, left.)


Eurostrictions

Here is the new deal: Say something not nice about some public figure; maybe someone who, though without much substance, still likes to bark like Bill O’reilly.

Then, prepare to provide space on your blog for whiny O’reilly to use to respond.

This very scenario is being proposed by the Council of Europe, a quasi-governmental body oft used to test proposals for new EU laws. As you can imagine some folks are not happy with this idea. From Peeve Farm:

And now the EU wants to regulate blogs, guaranteeing any criticized party the right to rebut any such criticism prominently on any such blog or website that issues it.

And from Perry at Samizdata:

People in the US, who take notions of Freedom of Expression and Private Property for granted, will be astonished by the latest steaming pile of wisdom to emerge from the clenched cheeks of our European would-be masters.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to climb right up on the battlements with Perry. Can’t the folks that dream this stuff up just go find a real job?

Update: Perry has more and if you have lots of time den Beste covers this at length.


Secret Warrants

The NY Times reports today that the Justice Department used secret warrants a record 1,228 times in 2002. The good news: while this is up 30% from 2001 it seems low.

The other news: the Foreign Intelligence surveillance Act (FISA) Court did not turn down a single request for a secret warrant. This could be good or bad: the justies either carefully screened and prepared their requests or FISA is just a rubber stamp.

The more disturbing news: the Bush folk want to let the CIA and Pentagon also use FISA to process secret warrants.

You might want to go read this and then think about whether you want this FISA to even exist.
UPDATE: Liquid List’s Tarek provides some more discussion on secret warrants.


Democracy in Iraq

Tim Dunlop mulls over Rumsfeld’s views on Iraq’s post war political structure and Jane Finch at The Daily Rant likes Tim’s ‘faith based initiative’ line. In the comments to the latter post Nathan tells us:

From what I understand, we would like to establish a robust constitution with strong guarantees for civil rights. Democracy has demonstrated that it is an excellent vehicle for preserving such rights. Islamic govts have not, and tend to overthrow such guarantees as soon as possible.
For democracy to work, a party has to win power, lose power, and then be able to regain power again.

Jane responds:

Nathan, how about the Iraqis establish their own constitution?

Read more at The Daily Rant (link above).

Perhaps they can just copy Qatar’s pending new constitution (which I discussed here a few days ago). It likely won’t fit Nathan’s expectations (which I tend to agree with) but it just might do for a faith based initiative.


How to Respond to the Patriot Act

Move to Arcata, CA? Better yet, work to persuade your local governments to to follow in Arcata’s footsteps. And, communicate with your congress folks. Tell them that the Patriot Act(large PDF file), an unnecessary, panic inspired, assault on our freedoms needs to be tossed out along with its sponsors.

To help you in your efforts the folks at The Liquid List provide a link to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.
Thanks to Behind the Homefront for pointing me to the Washington Post Article.